- (1.) The present revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 27.01.2016 passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Malout, whereby the application filed by the plaintiff not to record the statement of Raj Kumar (defendant no.14) has been allowed and he was not allowed to appear as a witness of petitioners (defendants no.8 and 9).
(2.) The perusal of the impugned order shows that said Raj Kumar was impleaded as defendant no.14 in the suit and was proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 23.04.2013. His application under Order 9 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for setting aside the said order was also dismissed by the learned trial Court on 01.12.2015. The petitioners wanted to examine him as their witness. Plaintiff moved the application not to record his statement as a witness of the petitioners. The said application filed by the plaintiff-respondent was allowed by the learned trial Court vide impugned order dated 27.01.2016.
(3.) There is no legal base for declining the petitioners to examine Raj Kumar (defendant no.14) as their witness. Mere this fact that he was proceeded against ex parte in the suit is no ground to bar the petitioners to examine him as their witness. Learned counsel for the respondents could not show me any statutory rule that in case a person is proceeded against ex parte, he is precluded from appearing as a witness of co-defendant. So, the present order suffers from material illegality and has resulted in miscarriage of justice.;